Hi All!
I wanted to revisit the issue of remaining on your mount in a building - but in a different way than we have discussed this in the past. Obviously the addition of the new (huge in relative terms) mount makes this more or less a required revisit, but what would be nice is if we avoided the thread devolving into an arbitrary argument about rights...
i. PREAMBLE
A proposal to define the issues pertaining to the refusal of players to dismount before entering buildings. With the addition of the new wolf-mount Warg to the world of Norrath, it has become desireable for a Community Standards Position to be created regarding this issue.
ii. KNOWN PAST ISSUES AND CONCERNS
In the past, attempts to promote the establishment of a Community Standards Position on this issue have invariably devolved into a question of rights that is predicated on ability. For the purposes of clarity and application of the issue that is central to this thread, specific points used in the past must be addressed prior to opening the thread for discussion so that old ground and established empty defensive positions are not used for entrenching purposes.
The following past positions have been discussed and their relative merits established or debunked:
ii(a): SOE WANTS ME TO RIDE MY MOUNT INTO BUILDINGS
Position: "If SOE did not want me to / If I am not supposed to - ride my mount into buildings, SOE would not allow me to do so.
Definition of Position: Posters taking this position promote the notion that behaviour in game that is not desired is, by common understanding, not permitted. Roughly translated this position states that if the action being discussed were in fact not desired by the community, SOE would have taken steps to keep it from happening.
Factual View: No official approval, implied or actual, is conveyed by the game designers through actionability or a lack of actionability on an issue. SOE and the EQ2 Dev Team has stated in the past that it does not claim omniscience as one of its base attributes, and has further refined their position by pointing out that they do not, as a rule, even think about the legislation of morality when they design a portion of the game mechanics.
Completely and wholly wrong. Just give a gander to PvP.
Resolution: "Just because you can do something does not mean that you should. "
Use of this position has long been viewed as an affirmative defense despite the fact that such justification flies in the face of reason, the concept of personal ethics, and established community standards.
There are many aspects of the game that require an application of the concept of "consideration" (ie The Golden Rule) that have never been addressed by game mechanics. There are many examples of this situation in the game and the general consensus of the issue has been that it is not an affirmative defense, is not valid, and should never be used for any purpose as a defense.
Determination: This position has been declared invalid by the Community. Use of this position in any future discussion of the subject shall automagically qualify under the Beating a Dead and Counterfeit Horse Rule; Violators will be made to wear the GW Bush Hat for one full game day.
ii(b): I PAY ($15 / $25 / X$ or Pounds or Marks) TO PLAY THIS GAME!
Position: I pay my subscription fee just like the rest of you, so if I want to do something in the game I have the right to do it! You do not have the right to tell me how to play MY game.
No, the typical touting goes along the lines of "because I pay for my own subscription, I can enact behavior to any degree as long as it is within the bounds of the game", or in a greater sense of the layman, "because I pay for my own subscription, I can play how I want" -- nobody ever claims the game is theirs, and the fact that they make such statements with the inference that they are to do such in a legitimate manner highlights how refutable your idea of this being acceptable really is.
Definition of Position: People using this justification usually do so as a last resort after failing to find a valid defensive footing based upon the substance of the issue being discussed.
Factual View: This countering justification is almost as old as the Hitler Rule and the FTW Rule, and has been historically found to actually invalidate the opinion of the person using it.
Resolution: This position has been defined as complete "Hogwash" by persons living in the Deep South, Southeast and West of the USA, and as "Wicked Stupid" by persons from New England and the North Shore of Massachusetts (see note 1). In addition this position has been defined as a "Gag me with a Spoon" defense in San Fernando, and in general about as effective as an NRA Life Membership Card for Kurt Cobaine by the rest of the West Coast. This defense has been declared "Rubbish" in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, "[I cannot control my vocabulary]`" in the Republic of Germany. Spain has not offered an opinion at press time, and France doe not understand what paying for access to a game has to do with moral behavior in the game.
Determination: It has been established through frequent use and long discussion that any person choosing to use this position as an affirmative defense lacks all moral abilities and should be driven from the village by torch and pitchfork wielding community members prior to the onset of puberty so that there is no possibility of their being able to polute the gene pool.
Note 1: The North Shore of Massachusetts is technically part of New England, however the people who live there do not know that, and insist on being able to offer a regional opinion despite not actually being a region. Due to their firm resolve on this matter, the Mountain Moved, and they have been granted de facto and de jure status as a Region.
ii(c): I DO NOT SEE HOW THIS CAN POSSIBLY BOTHER YOU!
Position: How is this an issue at all? It doesn't bother ME!
Definition of Position: The underlying theory of this position is that if the action that is being called offensive or inconsiderate does not actually strike the respondent as such, than it probably is not. In its most common usage, this position appears in game more often than on the boards, as a reply to a person asking them not to ride their mount inside a building.
Factual View: After very close and careful evaluation of this position using $85 hammers supplied by the Pentagon, the officially deputized investigators determined that the reason that the people who use this position think it is valid is because they are sitting on a mount, and so can see over the top of all of the OTHER people sitting on their mounts, and as a result are not actually able to see the position from the POV of a person standing in the ground.
Resolution: It has been declared by the majority that this position is just plain dumb and by a majority vote of the Community this position has been declared "The Tunnel Vision Defense."
Determination: Use of this defense - even jokingly - will result in the IMMEDIATE issuance of a warrant for the confiscation of both thumbs of the violator under the grounds that the use of this defense is clear proof that the offender does not deserve opposing thumbs and the benefits that are inherent to them.
ii(d): ASKING ME TO NOT RIDE MY MOUNT INDOORS IS HARASSMENT
Position: Asking me to dismount before coming indoors is harassment - besides which MY mount gives me combaat bonuses that are critical to my defense, and if I were to be attacked by harpies or a dragon in the bank or the broker in South Qeynos I would be unable to defend myself properly!
Definition of Position: Oooooohhhhkkkkaaaaaayyyyyyyy....
Factual View: What color is the sky in your world?
Resolution: See Determination.
Determination: Anyone using this defense is to be mocked unmercifully until they die.
It isn't harassment if you just ask them once, but if you proceed to then attempt pestering and/or argue with them, then it could be.
I. THE QUESTION OF MOUNTS IN BUILDINGS
With the recent addition of the new mount (Warg) the problem of people riding mounts inside buildings has become even more egregious and frustrating for the members of the community who willingly dismount before entering key community buildings as a matter of common courtesy.
Please be aware that I am not saying that ALL of the people who ride their mounts inside buildings are jerks, or are the sort who no matter how nicely you ask or how polite you are refuse to entertain the idea that it is inconsiderate of them to do it. In fact I believe that there are cases where a person simply forgets that they are mounted as they spend a large percentage of their time mounted, and it just seems normal to stay mounted even in town. For the most part, these are the same people who will apologize and instantly dismount if you ask them to - they are good people and this does not apply to them.
The question of mounts in buildings ultimately comes down to the issue of common courtesy. When you ride a mount into a building you are essentially placing a large object that people on foot cannot see through in a place where real events are undertaken. People need to access the bank and broker the same as you do, that is not a question.
Simple consideration dictates that if you can do something that costs you nothing to make life better for others, than you should do it. If you can keep from doing something that upsets others, and that is widely viewed by the community at large as an inconsiderate action, following the community ethos on the issue is a no-brainer.
II. PROPOSAL FOR A RESOLUTION FOR ACTION
I propose that the following administrative remedy be considered by the community as the appropriate response to people who refuse to dismount before entering buildings in town:
- The following phrase be universally adopted as the First Contact Phrase: /s Excuse me (Mounted Toon's Name), could you please dismount while indoors? Your mount is blocking the view.
- If the mounted player uses any of the disallowed excuses or says no, or is rude, all unmounted people in the building should then target the offending party and use the /moon command.
- If the person still refuses to be considerate and dismount, I propose that all of the people impacted by this rudeness send an email to the person's guild leaders explaining what they did and said after being asked to politely please dismount indoors.
- Additionally I propose that SOE place special NPC vendors who sell the following ammunition in or near the buildings that are being affected by this inconsiderate behavior: -Rotten Eggs -Rotten Tomatos -"I Stayed Mounted" Bumper Stickers This way, when someone is rude and stays mounted, they can be pelted with rotten eggs and tomatos and have a sticker slapped on their back that announces for all the world (and any potential group members) to see their shame. The Eggs and Tomatos should have an animated stink effect that causes odor animation to surround the toon, and soils their armor/clothing, with a timer of say 30 real life minutes. The sticker, which should appear on their back if they are wearing a guild cloak so that it covers their guild emblem, should have a time span of 1 real life day - and if they remove their cloak or were not wearing one, then it should be applied to their back like the names on football jerseys. In addition to this, it would be nice if SOE added a temporary Tag under the players name, say after the 10th offense, that says (INCONSIDERATE) and can not be removed until the player makes a pilgramage to the Shrine of the Mounted Jerk which I propose should be errected in the Clefts Zone. At the shrine they should have to sacrifice a mount in order to have the tag removed.
Well there you have it! Please add your own thoughts on this issue, as it really is a Game Play Impacting Issue.
Be Well...
Kat
For one, I think it just ought be inherently considered how ineffectual such actions and concern for them really can be. If someone wishes to portray and purvey their being a barbaric person, trampling into whichever location with their foot in mount is admissible on all levels. This sounds like an "item of contention" a girl on a carebear server would acknowledge. In all actuality, all it would be is a superficial smooth-over. If you want to beetch, moan, and complain about someone "being a jerk" because of their decision to remain mounted and not take "courtesies" for the less capable (i.e. those so helpless as to be unable to properly reposition themselves for "view" should they so require it), I suggest forming a girls' club. Yes, yes, I know -- not every "grrl" is a "Dutchgrrl". lmfao. ;P